THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “What you are saying is that the oceans are now nearly 20% more acidic than they were in pre-industrial times”.
No, Peter, that is NOT what I am saying at all.
First of all, the oceans are not “acidic” at all. They are, by definition, alkaline (pH exceeds 7.0).
What I wrote (I repeat) is:
Studies tell us that the “pre-industrial” ocean pH was 8.18, based on estimates and that this had risen, based on spot measurements, to 8.10 by the end of the 20th century. This represents an increase of 0.08, close to but slightly less than the value stated by IPCC.”
(IPCC had claimed a change of 0.1.)
Taking the inverse logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH, this tells us that increasing atmospheric CO2 from today’s 380 ppmv to a future level of 560 ppmv (as expected by the year 2100) will cause a decrease in the ocean’s alkalinity of around 0.09 on the pH scale, i.e. from today’s pH of 8.10 to around 8.01.
This all depends very much on the accuracy of the estimated pre-industrial pH values as well as the validity of the current spot pH measurements to really tell us what the average global and annual pH of the ocean really is. This is an even more daunting measurement exercise than the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature, which we all know has a whole host of problems. But let’s assume the measurements are correct and representative of the entire ocean.
It also depends very much on the natural and biological buffering effect within the ocean. The ocean contains a staggering 40,000 Gt of dissolved carbon compared with around 800 Gt in the atmosphere. All the fossil fuels remaining on our planet contain around 2,300 Gt carbon. If one-half of the CO2 emitted from burning all the fossil fuels on our planet were absorbed by the oceans, and none of this added CO2 would be converted by increased marine photosynthesis, the CO2 concentration of the ocean would increase by around 2%.
But there is also the biological buffering process to consider. The sea is a massive carbon dioxide reservoir, in balance with an even more massive limestone reservoir of 40,000,000Gt carbon in marine sediments.
Ignoring this huge biological buffering effect, the emitted CO2 from all the fossil fuels of the world would decrease the ocean’s alkalinity by 0.13 points on the pH scale to a pH of 7.88.
As far as reduction of the ocean’s alkalinity is concerned, IPCC has made some crazy estimates of two to four times the calculated impact, but, then again, they exaggerate everything to “sell their story”, so should not be taken too seriously.
Hope this clears it up for you.
“Ocean acidification” is just another imaginary boondoggle, Peter.
If Scripps gives Gore a “good-boy award”, this is a shrewd political move to help them get more funding to support this boondoggle, but it’s nothing to really worry about.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Your GCSE Physics paper (#4620) is full of AGW polemic and slanted logic intended to “brainwash” whoever takes it.
The multiple-choice options presented are “pre-loaded” with AGW postulations parading as facts. Choices that do not reflect the AGW “spin” are not even offered.
As an example of skewed logic, the African power unit problem is full of inaccurate cost comparisons, which ignore the fact that the “solar” alternate only generates power when the sun decides to shine, whereas the “petrol” alternate can run 90% of the time.
This problem conveniently picks power generation for a “water pump” only, but ignores that the African natives also require electrical power for lighting and cooking (to replace the firewood they now burn inside their huts).
If this is the sort of rubbish that we are teaching our schoolchildren, no wonder we have an education problem!
Regards,
Max
Max,
pH is uusually taken to mean the “power of the Hydrogen ion concentration”
The hydrogen ion concentration in fact defines acidity. In water there is a dynamic equation
H20 [H+] + [OH-] with a dissociation constant of 10^-14
Without getting too mathematical; when nearly all the [H+] ions are replaced with metal ions such as in NaOH (sodium hydroxide) the solution is said to have a pH of 14
When nearly all the [OH-] ions are replaced with other ions such as Cl- as in HCl or hydrochloric acid the pH is said to be 0.
Anthing in between has a mix of [H+] and [OH-] ions. Providing that there are at least some [H+]ions it is still correct to talk about the solution having some acidity.
Hope this clears it up for you, too! I must say that everytime I read that comment of yours, especially when you used it one time to Gavin Schmidt, I think what an arrogant ignorant **** you must be!
Max, Brute, and JZ,
TonyB and Robin have come out with comments such as “rubbish” and “silly” to describe Conservapedia. I wouldn’t disagree.
You’ve all had plenty to say about Wikipedia in the past. Have you nothing to say about Conservapedia? Which do you prefer?
Sorry Pete, haven’t had time yet. Had to replace a blown out exhaust (Header) gasket on the Brutemobile. Blew it out yesterday while careening through one of the national parks in Virginia, upsetting all of the nesting wildlife with the repugnant noise…..belching noxious exhaust fumes from the unencumbered, massive, high octane power plant. Burning lots and lots of irreplaceable fossil fuels…………A good time was had by all.
Now Mrs. Brute has ordered delivery Chinese for dinner, (with extra MSG) so I have to go get cleaned up, (in addition to being a climate skeptic, I’m also afraid of germs……like Howard Hughes).
I’ll look at it after dinner.
But, why the obsession? It’s only a dopey website….right? One, (or a few) people’s opinion(s)?
God, give it a rest.
Hi Peter,
Don’t know much about “conservapedia”, but I do know that Wikipedia does not provide unbiased and objective information on “global warming”.
It appears that their “input filter” removes anything that could in any way challenge the so-called “consensus” position on AGW.
Check “cloud feedback”. There is the ludicrous statement “Cloud feedback could almost halve or double the surface air temperature.” (Halve or double it in absolute degrees K, in degrees C, in degrees F?) Ouch! But do you see anything referring to the physical observations of Spencer et al., which demonstrated that the net feedback from clouds with warmer temperature is strongly negative? No.
Check “21st century global cooling” and you get no mention of the fact that the planet has cooled since 1998 (or 2001, depending on which temperature record you use),. Instead you read a discussion of an earlier cooling scare around 1970 plus the usual AGW explanation for late 20th century warming.
Try “global warming controversy” and you will see mention of a poll showing that 56% of UK respondents “believed scientists were still questioning climate change”, yet a table shows that 79% of people polled “in the USA and elsewhere” believe that “human activity is a significant cause of climate change”, 90% believe that “climate change is a serious problem” today (2006) versus only 78% in 2003, and 65% now believe “it’s necessary to take major steps starting very soon”. Duh! I wonder who fed them those statistics.
On other topics Wikipedia is usually fair and objective, but they “walk the party line” on AGW, so are not a very good reference source.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Creationist parents have the same problem when their children are taught evolution in schools. Maybe you could compare notes on how to tackle the issue:-)
That is at least the case in Australia and the UK. Probably the more enlightened parts of the the USA too. Although I do remember reading that some schools in the USA have banned Wikipedia. Too subversive!
Max,
I’m sure African ‘natives’ just like Swiss ‘natives’ or English ‘natives’ require better access to electrical power for a whole variety of reasons. Unfortunately there just isn’t the infrastructure of electrical power grids available in most of the continent.
Renewable energy sources can offer the best and cheapest alternative in those circumstances. Solar panels are available at reasonable cost. What is really needed to make everything work efficiently is the development of a cheap electrical battery.
Hi Peter,
The point I “cleared up” for you was first of all a correction of a statement where you misquoted me.
Then I “cleared up” the fact that the slight reduction in ocean alkalinity from pre-industrial days to today (if the measurements are any good) gives us the good news that there will be no significant change in ocean pH over the next 100 ears (from human CO2 emissions), or even until all the fossil fuels on Earth are consumed.
All this despite erroneous claims by IPCC to the contrary.
I did not discuss the “theory” of what pH means and how it is calculated, which you have covered. Everyone who took (and passed)chemistry in school knows all that.
Just to “clear it up” for you, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter,
Please stop trying to hijack the CaCC forum with continued talk of sockpuppets, again. It is getting very childish for someone your age (going by your facebook picture).
I’m getting very tired of asking.
Hi Peter,
I agree totally when you write (4631), “I’m sure African ‘natives’ just like Swiss ‘natives’ or English ‘natives’ require better access to electrical power for a whole variety of reasons. Unfortunately there just isn’t the infrastructure of electrical power grids available in most of the continent.”
This is precisely the challenge. To provide the underdeveloped world the “power” of “electrical power” (as we have in our world), not to give them a few very expensive and inefficient “green mini-solutions” that do not solve anything. Some of these nations have oil or natural gas reserves. For the rest, coal is a good alternate. Nuclear stations for developing nations. many of whom have unstable governments and a history of warfare, is not a good option.
Why deny these poor people what we take for granted and limit them to expensive “mini-solutions” that will not really solve their problems?
It is really a selfish, rich-man’s plot to keep the poorest of this planet where they are.
Regards,
Max
Here’s what Wikipedia writes about “Conservapedia”:
“Conservapedia is a “right-wing” English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view. It was started in 2006 by lawyer and social studies teacher Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.
Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia, some of whose policies Schlafly feels contribute to bias. For example, only users logged in to registered accounts can make changes to Conservapedia articles. Primarily, a set of policies known as the Conservapedia Commandments guides editorial procedures on the site on such issues as bias and accuracy.
Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as of its alleged liberal ideology.”
I’ve never used them as a reference.
I’ve also stopped using Wikipedia much as a reference on AGW topics, because I have found them to be too one-sided (in favor of the AGW “mainstream” hypothesis).
Max
On the subject of Africa.
I remember reading an article not so long ago about an African state that was now preventing the use or charcoal (might have been coal). Bare in mind that many of the people there don’t have access to electricity, and this was their primary fuel for fire. The practical upshot is very little hot water or cooking. Marvelous idea, not being able to boil water in Africa. Quite a few people there not very happy.
Would you like to guess why the sale was prevented?
(apologies, i can’t find the original article)
Neither? Both? I suppose that if I were researching a topic looking for a Liberal point of view I would use Wikipedia; if from an Evangelical Christian point of view, I would choose your website, Conservapedia. In the end I’d probably formulate my own opinion and not simply parrot what others tell me or want me to believe.
Here’s the rub. Sources of information are, and always have been, generated by people. Different people have different ways of viewing things, events, and situations.
My complaint chiefly is that the majority of information publicized today is heavily editorialized. I suppose it has been happening since the beginning of time. Two people can witness the same exact event and report that event from wholly different viewpoints……. Language is interesting that way.
The website you reference seems to hold an Evangelical Christian point of view, which is fine with me……you? I suppose if I didn’t want to read about things from a Evangelical Christian point of view, I wouldn’t go there.
I’m not certain what you want from me here. Do you want me to disavow and disassociate myself from a website that I hadn’t heard of until 30 minutes ago?
Holding up Wikepedia, (or Conservapedia) as the gospel truth, (pun intended), regarding any topic is preposterous.
I typed in “Sun” and it gave some typical statistics that seemed to be Ok…..then a biblical viewpoint which is Ok also…..it doesn’t mean that what the Bible says is incorrect anymore than the statistics are……two viewpoints…..get it? Could both be right? How do you know?
Some Christians belief “X” and some secularists believe “Y”. Are you opposed to 2 differing viewpoints being expressed? Should one viewpoint be suppressed? Which one Pete? (Be careful).
Where is your sense of commitment to “tolerance” and “diversity”?
Anyway, we’d better change the subject before we incur the wrath of TonyN.
Hope that “cleared it up” for you. (insert smiley face here).
Max and Brute,
Its not so much about Wikipedia and Conservapedia ‘per se’, but rather that the two represent the two most dominant currents of opinion in the US today. On the one side Wikipedia represents a pro-science, secular modernist line of thought. On the other conservapedia represents what I would term the religious right. Complete with anti-evolutionist, anti-AGW, and irrationalist views. You do get the ‘conservapedia’ line of opinion in Australia and the Europe too, of course, but nowhere to the same extent as in the USA.
I’ve nothing against people practicing whatever religion they wish, in the privacy of their own homes and churches. But, sometimes as with evolution theory and AGW there is a clash between religion and science and that does need to be recognised. At some point everyone needs to choose.
Its less obvious why there should be a religious influence with AGW than with say evolution. It is quite possible to argue that humanity should respect the ‘creation’ rather than damage it. However, I believe that the Biblical idea that God has given man ‘dominion’ over the earth, to ‘go forth and multiply’ without limit, is essentially behind the opposition of the religious right.
The forces behind them are rich and powerful. They do largely fund the anti-AGW movement worldwide. It seems to me that you are all somewhat coy about recognising that. You are ‘in bed’ with some very odd people!
‘Barelysane’,
I know you might be on shift work or an isomniac, but writing up blog posts at 1.22am UK time does make me wonder if that is where you really are.
Peter Martin, Reur 4607, you wrote in part:
In your latter line, I think that the verb that you were trying to guess (MSU) out of your lack of knowledge on the subject was ‘Alkalize‘. (Not alkalinification, although alkalinise is a nice sometimes alternative). For your continued education, here are a couple of dictionary definitions for ‘alkalize‘:
“MS Works” dictionary:
Alkalize: make or become alkaline: to make something alkaline, or become alkaline
Macquarie edition 4, (Australian):
Alkalise, (or alkalize) v.t. to make alkaline; change into an alkali.
Next are a couple of comparative dictionary definitions for ‘acidify‘:
“MS Works” dictionary:
Acidify: vti Turn acid: to turn something acid, or become acid
Macquarie edition 4, (Australian):
Acidify: v.t. 1. To make acid; convert or change to an acid v.i. 2. To become acidic; turn acidic
I did a Google for ‘alkalize’ and ‘acidify‘, and there are multiple references which you might also care to explore, none of which I could find to contradict the above.
Note that together with what has been discussed before, the dictionary definitions do not accommodate your belief that reducing pH WITHIN an alkaline state is a process of acidification. Conversely, neither would it allow that increasing pH WITHIN an acidic state, amounts to alkalization.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In your first line from 4607 above of:
I don’t know how you quantify this alleged commonality, or who is declaring it, but whatever, it is clearly technically wrong. For a chemist like Hayman to declare increasing acidity WITHIN an alkaline environment, is a reprehensible distortion of the science, and sheer political spin.
If you keep telling the public that the oceans are acidifying, (When in fact they may be only slightly less alkaline), it leaves the impression to lay people that fish will shortly be unable to survive in vinegar etc. and blah blah blah!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Max, I hope that you don’t think I’m intruding on your expertise as a chemical engineer, (and pls correct me if I said anything wrong above, since you must know much more about chemistry than me…. my admittedly weak subject), but I want to address this emerging “PLAN B” from the AGW alarmists.
For example; No, enough for now, I’ll come back later!
Hi Peter,
Enjoyed your latest thoughts on Wikipedia, etc.
As I have not referred to the “Conservapedia” site, I cannot make any judgments about it. From what you say, it appears to be a so-called “Christian” site. While some of the “values” that these sites espound sound good, they usually leave me pretty cold.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is usually a good source of information on many topics.
But I have found that this site is not un-biased and objective when it comes to the ongoing political, economic and scientific debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis.
Instead, the site rather seems to “parrot” the AGW “party line” as promulgated by IPCC. I believe that there must be a “pro-AGW” input filter to the site, although I cannot present any evidence to support this postulation.
For this reason, I prefer to look at other, more objective, sources for any information on this topic.
Fortunately, there are many.
And there are more than just two polarized viewpoints on all this. It’s not just Wikipedia and Conservapedia that “represent the two most dominant currents of opinion in the US today”. This evaluation is far too simplistic, Peter.
Rational skeptics challenge the “consensus” opinion, based on scientific principles. It is realitively easy to demonstrate tht many of the AGW postulations are based on “junk science” (as we have seen in our discussion).
These rational skeptics also use the Internet to challenge the political and economic proposals of the politicians and bureaucrats who use the AGW hypothesis to support a major power grab and taxation policy.
This is truly the wonder of the Internet.
Bless you, Al Gore, for having “invented” it!
Regards,
Max
Hey Bob_FJ
Your thoughts on “alkalinity”, “acidity” and the hype surrounding the miniscule changes in ocean alkalinity due to relatively small amounts of absorbed, allegedly human-sourced CO2 are spot on. This is a boondoggle.
I write this at the risk of having Peter declare me a “sockpuppet” of you (or vice versa).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 4638:
“The forces behind [the AGW hysteria] are rich and powerful. They do largely fund the pro-AGW movement worldwide. It seems to me that you are somewhat coy about recognising that. You are ‘in bed’ with some very odd people!”
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, further my 4604 and your 4592/4593/4594/4608/4621/4628, you seem to be developing another OCD that most of us should be aware of, and be interested in “Conservapedia”.
May I assure you that I have not previously been aware of it, and I have no recollection of others here, including yourself, ever making any prior reference to it.
So you cite the following image as the epitome of “Conservapedia”:
If no mimage, click:http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/5e/Hitler_and_Darwin.jpg
Looking at this split-image construct, that being YOUR choice in depicting the site, I would suggest that most rational people would immediately think that it must be satirical; silly; or “black comedy”, and not to be taken as a serious source of scientific information.
Several of us here, including yourself, have made reference to Wikipedia, but some of us cautioning against acceptance of entries on emotive issues. None of us, including yourself, have ever previously made reference to entries in Conservapedia that I can recall.
It would seem that Conservapedia is a recent discovery by you, and that you read far too much into it!
PS Not to offend Americans, “black comedy” does not mean African American comedy!
I am not sure if I have posted this article here before. It is one that I wrote about the ‘Gatekeeper to Wikipedia’ Anyway, it seems relevant to quote it again as it closely ties in with people with agendas. This is fine in your own home but needs to be seen in context when expressed publicly.
Article follows;
Quite rightly, strict editorial rules exist to ensure every Tom Dick and Harry don’t try to use Wikipedia to promote their personal half baked theories to a world audience. On the more specific question as to whether the gatekeeper of the Climate science section is more hostile to Sceptic submissions than Warmist ones, the following information may help readers to make their own judgements.
To achieve this aim it may be instructive to follow the role of the administrator of the climate section, Mr William Connelly
Firstly, it is worth restating the criteria for wikipedia in considering submissions made to them;
“Verifiability
Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.”
To examine the claims of alleged bias often made against William Connelly on the matter of him favouring material submitted to him by warmists, as against that from sceptics, it is worth following a specific case-that of Lawrence Solomons- who wrote the well known sceptics book ‘The Deniers’
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
The above is a very good link re alleged wiki bias, with a subsequent blog of claim and counter claim, including a robust defence mounted by the editor of wiki who was criticised. It is instructive reading and worth staying with to the end.
This next link is by way of a review of the book by Solomons in The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/06/the-climate-change-deniers/
This is another review and provides some further background to the wikipedia bias claim by Solomons, so throws further light on the first link.
http://richardvigilantebooks.com/
The link below is not objective, but throws interesting light on William Connelly (The Administrator) and his alleged bias against sceptics views.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17981
This is the blog of William Connelly that is accessed from within Real Climate, in which he actively supports them by, amongst other actions, attending a conference in Vancouver.
“ I was there with my Real Climate hat on, to offer ideas and insight on blogging in particular, and public communication of science in general.”
http://www.realclimate.org/
Some people wishing to submit sceptical material question whether wiki should allow people with close links to a web site enthusiastically endorsing the views of Dr Mann (whose Hockey stick reconstructions were thought to have been widely discredited) and has known passions-he stood as a failed candidate for the UK Green Party five times-is objective enough to be allowed to oversee the editing of the climate pages of the worlds leading reference source as an administrator (definition and duties here )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators
The wiki core element of verifiability rather than truth allows some potential leeway in accepting articles that support a personal view. Consequently wiki’s objectivity- by any reasonable measure- should perhaps be called into some question (on certain controversial topics such as climate change) Checking back to original sources should be a follow up to any wiki climate related research, but many people rely on it as their primary and only source, thereby receiving a certain view of the topic.
This is William Connellys personal blog leading to various other topics he is interested in.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926
The guy is no ogre, has an obvious sense of humour, and has a particular world view as a UK Green party candidate. The policies of the party in general are referenced below-they have sometimes been described as the green successors to the communist party and thoroughly anti capitalist. In Britain they have a Euro M.E.P in Caroline Lucas.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Babylon-Beyond-Economics-Anti-capitalist-Anti-globalist/dp/0745323901
This about other Green party links to anti capitalist, socialist, communist and marxist movements
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/ecology.htm
The Green party’s specific policies and philosophies can be read here. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspb.html
This page states the green party’s current understanding of climate change and their own mitigation policies
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsscc.html
William Connelly’s politics and beliefs are his own business in his personal life. Where they might impact on the public in a wider sense, some might say that his own deeply held beliefs and links may make him insufficiently objective to administer the climate science pages of the worlds most referenced information source.
Footnote-There is something of a Catch 22 situation. As the IPCC report -warts and all- is considered the pinnacle of verifiable climate science it is referenced accordingly by Wikipedia, so even debatable information is presented as factual. Consequently sceptical information -which by definition is therefore incorrect- will achieve limited profile. The end result is that those from the wider world seeking information on the subject will always end up with IPCC supplied ‘factual’ data and will take a view on climate change accordingly.
TonyB
Well I’m sure we are pretty close to thrashing this one death. But on a hit rate count:
‘Acidification’ gave 1,430,000 Google hits
‘Ocean acidification’ gave 219,000 hits
‘Alkalinification’ gave 17,500 hits
‘alkalization’ gave 52,400 hits
‘Ocean Alkalization’ gave 3690 hits
‘Ocean Alkalinification’ gave 10 hits
I’m not saying that any of these terms are incorrect but you’ve only got to look at the above numbers to see which ones are most commonly used.
That’s just the way it is in the English language. There is no misunderstanding or deliberate intent to mislead by the use of any of these terms.
Peter:
The reason this thread is so interesting and, I believe, has lasted so long is that it has from the outset been a sober, balanced, intelligent and often amusing discussion about the scientific and social issues associated with global warming. Occasional extreme, rude or foolish contributors have either been ignored or not tolerated; they haven’t stayed around for long.
Your postings are usually valuable and always challenging. But, from time to time, you try (as now) to turn the thread into a wholly false confrontation between sensible liberal/pro-science on the one hand and dotty conservative/anti-science on the other – e.g. suggesting that being wary of Wikipedia means being in favour of Conservapedia (of which, amusingly, no one other than you had heard).
You seem to adopt this tactic when you are losing the debate elsewhere. A tip: it’s doesn’t work. Far better if you addressed some real issues such as one I raised in #4601: as there is no possibility of China, India, Brazil and other developing economies plus Russia, other ex-Soviet states, the Islamic world and others doing much, if anything, about reducing their GHG emissions, do you accept that catastrophic ecological damage is now inevitable? If not, why not?
Peter Martin, Reur 4696, by counting (Google?) hits on single words like ‘acidification’ and lower denominators like ‘ocean acidification’, (which should be included in the above), you display continued naiveté. Such hits that you assume to support your case all need to be individually reviewed for context, which is obviously an impossible task by sheer volume of the hits.
To illustrate just how naive your latest assertion is, I’ve done a Google on ‘acidify’ and ‘alkalize’ and its three alternative spellings:
Acidify: 297,000 hits
Alkalise 224,000 hits
Alkalize 200,000 hits
Alakalinise 47,800 hits
Alkalinize 21,100,000 hits
Thus ‘acidify’ (verb) gives 297,00 hits, and ‘alkalize’ (verb) together with its other 3 variant spellings gives a total of 21,370,200 hits
Thus Peter, your latest assertion based on Google (?) hits, is evidently naïve, and leaking like a damaged sieve.
HINT: Individual word hits on Google do not account for context although complex searching may give some refinements.
Peter Martin
You do seem a little obsessed with identity. Perhaps an example will illustrate why I prefer anonymity.
How many of the 800,000 google pages which return from a search of “Peter Martin” relate to you?
As for my name, well – all 80 or so pages come back about me – my address, affiliations, work, business, universities, presentations, etc. can all be found with one search.
Since there are currently those who seem to believe that I have a personality disorder (as per the comments above about the psycho conference) and there are others who see climate as an issue for justified illegal direct action, I do not wish to put my work, family or house etc at risk. I never imagined that it would come to this. The believers like yourself are such an emotional and aggressive bunch with religious zeal for ends that justify any means that I do fear entering open debate. I have friends that I dare not tell my views simply because their entire livelihood depends on a PoV that I don’t share.
Remember (from my very 1st post on this site) that no scientific controversy has ever been ‘settled’ by an inter-governmental panel before, nor has it needed to be. Ask yourself why this is.
Whilst the media (esp. BBC) has put a block on reporting any inconvenient facts, the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. You must see that. And to compound this the horror tories (as per the Vicky Pope declaration) are all stacked to one side.
In conclusion, why don’t you just let the facts speak for themselves – there’s far too much ad hominem already in this field.
Speaking of facts I generally agree with you about acidification/alkalinity. It’s a bit like hot and cold (but more complex) – if a solution is alkaline you acidify it to reduce its alkilinity.
“horror tories” – I like – but it should of course be “horror stories” above